Gurtek goes low-tech.

Many believe that it is an appreciation of a simple, efficient, yet low-tech approach to certain aspects of life that keeps us playing with muzzleloaders at a time when most everyone else seeks quicker, easier and cheaper ways of getting through life. For the most part we’re not looking for the high-tech, easy, time-saving manner of burning powder and sending lead down range. We are those who choose the road less traveled. We prefer the slower, low-tech, certainly old-tech, road where we may shoot less but we enjoy it more. When it comes to technology, for many of us the saying that “less is more” certainly applies. More times than not we prefer low-tech and that’s one reason why we admire underhammer guns – simple, efficient and low-tech.

Brent Gurtek is also such a man and we thank him for sharing some photos of his first underhammer project. In a phone interview with this full time gunmaker, he said his usual work consists of Kentucky rifles and similar side-locked firearms of the 1750-1850-period. However, he always harbored a love for underhammer sporting arms. Recently he decided to finally take the plunge into the pool of underhammer makers. He brought his experience with longrifles to the bench to create this unique underhammer which exudes the innovative design and flavor of an original piece of the early 19^th century.



Brent said that his rifle wears a 36-inch octagonal, straight-tapered (1" - 7/8") .50-caliber round-ball barrel by Ed Rayl. The tapered barrel lends a wonderful sense of balance to the finished rifle, both in handling characteristics as well as aesthetics, and unbeknownst to many, it also provides superior accuracy.

The case-hardened action is made by Charles Bowers and features the simple logic of the time-honored triggerguard/mainspring construction. The Bowers action uses Allen screws (unfortunately) to secure the barrel/receiver connection for ease of take-down and barrel swapping for those who are inclined to shoot two or more calibers (or bird shot) from the same platform.






Brent chose curly English walnut for the stock and its mountings are brass. He claims that his patchbox design is loosely based on others from eastern Pennsylvania and reflects his longrifle background. It certainly seems to “date” the piece as an early transitional type of percussion rifle just emerging from the Golden Age. Brent then tastefully antiqued the whole rifle to give it the flavor of a well-maintained original.

Brent’s manner of fixing the ramrod pipes to the barrel provides a rigid and durable arrangement. The “pipes” are made of brass sheet having a flange that is soldered to the barrel and decorated in appropriate manner. All in all a very nice treatment and one which displays the ingenuity of frontier gunmakers who had little in the way of machinery to provide the methods of construction employed by the factories and even some of the more established gunmakers in the more settled areas of the East.

Brent fabricated the ramrod thimbles from brass sheet which he
soldered to the barrel for a wonderful frontier gunmaker's look.

“I make most of the bits & pieces for my guns, preferring to use ’catalog’ parts as little as possible." says Brent. "The sights and butt plate shown here are both of my own manufacture.” he adds. It is that fabrication of his own “bits and pieces” that lend that certain individuality to his work. He also stated that he’s been diligently working on an underhammer design of his own which we hope to see in the near future. Brent sums it all up by saying, “Underhammers are inadequately appreciated by modern muzzle loading shooters and THAT MUST CHANGE!!” To help remedy that situation he is presently involved with three other underhammer projects and plans to continue to build underhammer rifles, too.



Since the original posting, we received this pic of the nice doe that Brent harvested with the rifle displayed above. Way to go, Brent!

Just a reminder that clicking on the images will enlarge them. Clicking the "Back" arrow will return you to the text.

All photos copyrighted by Brent Gurtek

Wade Ingrham's Underhammers

For most underhammer aficionados it's satisfying enough to find the underhammer that pleases your sense of aesthetics, or accuracy, or history, or whatever it is that blasts your bullseye, and then buy the thing and go shoot it, or whatever.

Not that challenge is lacking in that endeavor. In fact, due to the rarity and limited selection of underhammers in the marketplace, the greatest challenge may be in the search for that perfect underhammer - sometimes only to find out, sadly enough, that it hasn't been made in over 100 years, or copies of it were never made, are no longer made, or never will be made.

Some of us never do find what we really want despite serious searching. Perhaps as a reward for our diligence, however, the Universe, for some unexplainable reason, singles us out and we are blessed (or cursed - certainly obsessed) with an epiphany - a genuine EUREKA! moment - in which the heavens open and choirs of angels sweetly sing.

After such conversion we then decide, contrary to all logic and good sense as offered by well-meaning friends, neighbors, and relatives, that not only can we make a better underhammer than humanity has ever seen, but, we’ll get into the business and share the blessing of our brainchild with the world! We are on a truly holy mission after all.

Those of you who have seen the vision know this is truth. For those who pray they, too, may see the holy vision, some simple advice - don't quit your day job.

Once upon a time back in the 1980s (that's "retro" for our younger readers) Wade Ingrham picked up a copy of Logan’s wonderful book, The Pictorial History of the Underhammer Gun. Like many others, he was certainly captivated and inspired by all the drawings of the various underhammer styles and actions depicted therein. Unlike most folks, however, he, too, saw the holy vision and decided he would make his own underhammers. The rest, as they say, is history.

After visiting with Wade a short time I realized this delightfully wise, humorous and grand old man of muzzleloading is certainly a kindred soul – crazy about designing and building underhammers - and I mean that as a most sincere compliment.




While he did incorporate as Ingrham Underhammer Rifle Company, Inc., Wade states that his real intention was simply to make rifles and pistols for himself and his sons. And true to his intention he made underhammer target and hunting rifles, target and boot pistols and some shotguns, too. Some plain, some fancy, but all good solid guns.



Wade's pistol action is simple and straight forward and features the original Ruggles grip design favored by many New England underhammer makers of old. His rifle action, however, is considerably different than the ordinary and uses a separate "link" as the sear in his design, as seen above left. His approach eliminates the need of critical machining of a sear notch in the hammer and matching surfaces and angles for a sear on the trigger. Rather ingenious actually.




With his basic pistol receiver he's able to produce either boot pistols or with the addition of ergonomically-sculpted grips and target sights he has a fine piece for paper punching.

Wade has successfully developed both rifle and pistol actions, and to his credit he even built a few underhammer flint pistols which he claims have as quick an ignition as a percussion pistol.

(I sure wish that I had one of his flinters in those early days of my conversion while preaching the underhammer gospel to the doubters at the range that it was flint ignition that had inspired the underhammer system in the first place. I'm sure they were convinced that I must have been smoking loco weed.)

For the most part Wade likes to keep things very simple and will sometimes use off-the-shelf items such as a TC trigger guard, buttplate and patchbox to complete some of his rifles, which keeps costs down and speeds the assembly process.

While Wade claims that he is no longer "in business,” so to speak, he still offers parts on a very limited basis to those who may choose to replicate his rifles and pistols. A visit to his website: www.lx.net/wadeingrham will provide many more photos of his work and details on which parts are currently available, as well as his contact information.

Receiver and barrel(s) are easily and securely joined with nothing more than an allen wrench.

We're thankful to Wade for having graciously provided photos of his work and while they're pretty self explanatory, if you have any questions you can certainly visit his website and e-mail him. I’m sure he’ll be happy to correspond with you.

Thank you, Wade, for your great contributions to the fascinating and ongoing history of underhammer arms. We're all appreciative of your efforts.

Since first posting of this article, Wade has indicated that his muzzleloading operation is for sale. For those of you who may have seen the holy vision and fancy Wade's rifles and pistols you might consider contacting Wade for the details on the purchase of the assets of his company.

Seriously, I would like to make a plea to those of you who can imagine yourself as gunmakers. We simply cannot let small operations like Wade's pass away silently into the night. This is a good opportunity for someone with vision and the resources to take Wade's idea to the next level and keep the individual gunmaking craft alive in this country.

His legacy could also be your legacy to the underhammer aficionados and collectors of the future. We all have an opportunity to contribute a line to history. The question is: Will history have anything worthwhile to say about you?

True it's not for everyone, but it may be the perfect fit for one of you.

Think about it.

(Clicking on the center of any of the photos will enlarge them. Clicking the "Back" arrow will return you to the text)

Missed it by that much.

Recently I received an e-mail chiding me about failing to describe the basic advantages of the underhammer concept to new converts to muzzleloading. I have to admit that in retrospect I did miss the bullseye from the beginning in assuming that we all know the basic stuff. I do apologize to the readers for this now apparent oversight.

I will now try to answer that nagging question in the minds of many muzzleloaders, “Why would anyone in their right mind want a rifle with the hammer on the bottom?!”

Most of us are well aware of the most obvious advantage of the underhammer system, that being its ambidextrous nature that allows our left-handed brethren equal opportunity to enjoy the many other advantages of this unique firearm genre. There are several other features, though, that many underhammer designs share, which, when combined with good engineering and top-quality craftsmanship, have become the most sought of the underhammers, hence, the most valuable to collectors and shooters alike.

Obviously, mounting the hammer below the receiver, where it swings upward to the barrel, offers several logical advantages over the side-mounted hammer. The shooter’s view of both the sights and the target is not interrupted by the distraction of a hammer protruding into the shooter’s field of view. Likewise, the percussion underhammer system keeps the flash and the shrapnel of the cap from the eye and provides a greater margin of protection to the face. It was, after all, the distracting flash of powder in the priming pan that inspired the first flint underhammer designs by Germanic gunmakers back in the 18th century (that's the 1700s for those who didn't pay attention in History class).

Clicking in the center of the photo above will enlarge it to provide a better idea of just how much flame and distraction is created by the flintlock. Remember, that when firing a flintlock rifle the flare seen here is much closer to the shooter's face than with a pistol held at arms length. By the way it is at this precise moment that you're supposed to be focusing on breathing, sight alignment, and trigger squeeze...

Yeah, right. They weren't nicknamed "flinchlocks" for nothing.

Clicking the "Back" arrow at the top left of the screen will return you to the text.

Despite its obviously logical advantages, many who have actually shot some underhammer rifles dislike them because most designs are notorious for spitting cap shrapnel into the shooter’s wrist, while some pistols pepper the fingers of the shooting hand. A simple solution is to utilize a musket nipple and caps. Musket caps, being constructed of thicker metal, do not fragment upon firing as #11 caps are designed to do. Musket caps are also much "hotter" than wimpy #11 caps and can make a considerable difference in the performance of the firearm.

True, not all underhammers can be corrected so simply. Other methods of overcoming the spitting require fitting flash shields or modifying hammer faces or worse. Luckily, however, some underhammers were designed with this situation in mind and don’t have the nasty habit of spitting cap fragments.

Mounting the hammer below the barrel further allows placement of the nipple directly into the barrel without need for a separate drum, bolster or snail. So arranged, the cap is closer to the powder charge and its flash isn't diminished in speed or intensity by having to negotiate corners, but instead, is projected directly into the powder charge resulting in more instantaneous ignition and improved accuracy.

One other great advantage of the bottom-mounted hammer is that if the firearm is dropped, it is far less likely to fall directly upon the hammer and accidentally fire the piece than if the hammer is protruding from the top of the piece, as is the case with side mounted hammers - whether in rifles or pistols.

And speaking of hammers and safety issues and all that liability stuff, one will find that some underhammer pistols and rifles of old, yes, and some new one's, too, are not equipped with a trigger guard nor a half-cock notch. If you come upon one of these designs, be sure to exercise extra caution in handling and shooting them.

The bottom-mounted hammer also limits the possibility of the hammer being inadvertently cocked and/or having the cap flicked from the nipple, or the flintlock's frizzen being snapped open with loss of priming powder, all by the snag of a branch while stalking through thick cover. All events that I have had unpleasant personal experiences with many years ago while carrying various side-hammer rifles.

Most underhammer designs feature a trigger that is in direct engagement with its hammer, thus eliminating the need for extra parts such as the sear, tumbler, fly, and bridle, as well as their attendant small screws and spring. A correctly designed hammer and trigger directly engaged, as in better underhammer designs, also eliminates the need of a set trigger mechanism to achieve a crisp pull of the trigger, although there are a few examples of older underhammer target rifles that were so equipped.

So, there you have it. While different makers have incorporated other, perhaps less obvious features, these are the primary advantages of the underhammer guns that we have come to admire so much.

Did I forget anything?

Randy, I hope I’m out from behind the bullseye, now.

.

Hilliard Target Rifle

A noted maker of fine underhammer pistols and rifles was David H. Hilliard of Cornish, New Hampshire. The Hilliard design bears a striking resemblance and similarity to the work of Nicanor Kendall, which bears similarity to the work of Asa Story. Because these men were contemporaries living almost within spitting distance of each other, one has to wonder who was copying whom!

It is not uncommon to find similarities in muzzleloading firearms coming out of a particular geographical area as it was the practice of an apprentice, once on his own, to replicate the designs and methods of the master from whom he learned the craft. And that is exactly why we find the similarities in the Story, Kendall, and Hilliard designs.

So far as historians have been able to uncover, Asa Story began making underhammer arms at the outset of the percussion era. Apprenticed to him was another noted New England gunmaker, Nicanor Kendall. Kendall hung out his own shingle in 1835 making arms very similar to those he had made while under the tutelage of Story. Kendall continued making his famous underhammers in Windsor, Vermont until 1842 when he sold the business to Hilliard who produced fine quality work until his death in 1877. Hilliard's son continued the business for some time thereafter.

Kendall later jumped back into the game with a partner who later gained fame of his own, Richard S. Lawrence. In 1844 S.E. Robbins joined the firm and the new name became Robbins, Kendall & Lawrence. They, too, produced underhammers of the Kendall design further adding to the confusion.

.

Hilliard made some minor changes to the lockwork and the hammer of the Kendall and to the design of the stocks on his pistols, but other than for minor changes, one really must look to the makers name on the barrel to tell one from the other.

As a side note, interestingly, all three of these makers used Remington barrels on their wares at one time or another as is marked on this specimen. Remington was originally a barrel maker who, as we all know, went on to create his own firearms empire.

Our thanks to Steve Philippy for sharing with us these great photos of his recently acquired Hilliard target rifle. While this specimen is missing the trigger guard, it does sport double set triggers and a sear engagement screw in the sear notch of the hammer. These features, combined with it's three-sight system, definitely brand it as a high-grade rifle.

Steve said he found a triggerguard which has since been installed. According to Steve, there are no provisions for attaching a forearm which is not uncommon among early underhammer rifles. In fact, most early underhammer pistols and even some rifles didn’t wear ramrods either!

According to measurement, the bore diameter indicates the barrel is .54 caliber, which seems to indicate that it may have been a dual-purpose rifle intended for filling the larder as well as for showing off one's shooting prowess at the range. We may never know for sure.

Thanks, again, Steve, for your contribution.

More Thoughts on Forsyth

A long, long time ago, at a backwoods rendezvous, I discovered the following truth printed on the back of a well-worn t-shirt being sported by a gal who looked equally well-worn. The message read:

“It takes balls of lead to be a muzzleloader.”

Sometimes the Universe provides enlightenment in the most peculiar ways!

In an earlier posting about Forsyth rifling I expounded on my reasons for using it for the hunting rifles that I build. I commented about the effectiveness of big round balls in decisively dispatching game and my preference for them over the “new” sub-caliber bullets cocooned in plastic sabots. I do understand all the hype that this new fad is all about achieving higher velocities (translate as killing energy) at greater distance than is generally believed feasible with old-fashioned round balls. In my opinion, the validity of those claims is open to debate.

After reading my comments on Forsyth’s rifling concepts, one of our readers replied that round balls just don’t perform as well as higher velocity pointed muzzleloader bullets at ranges beyond 60 or 70 yards. I’m willing to bet that like so many others, he derived that conclusion from reading ballistic data for round balls.

While I have to admit that downrange velocity and foot-pound numbers don’t seem very impressive when it comes to big round balls, there is an element of the power equation that is sorely lacking from simple ballistics charts – one that is consistently overlooked by the crowd. A concept that, once understood, will forever change the way you think about big round ball projectiles. That missing element is momentum.

If we are to consider and believe in paper ballistics alone and ignore actual performance in the field, we would be lead to believe that the .243 Winchester outperforms the old soldier, .45-70 Government, in its ability to put down big game.

However, the facts of the matter are quite the opposite as we all know. But we tend, nevertheless, to continue to use simple two-element paper ballistics equations as we seemingly lack for a basis of comparison of performance between various loads, be they cartridge or loose powder and ball. Regardless of which, the point is that we continue to draw the wrong conclusions about their effectiveness on game when comparing by mere velocity and energy numbers.

This puzzling situation is nothing unique to us moderns and has, in fact, been carefully contemplated many long decades ago by the famous African hunter, John Taylor. Taylor early realized that paper ballistics derived from simple Newtonian calculations did not account for the ability of big bullets lumbering along at moderate velocities to put down really tough game with a single shot when compared to smaller-bored higher-velocity bullets.

He postulated that the missing element of the power equation was bullet diameter. Including the bullet diameter in the equation provides a three dimensional view of the power dynamic while providing insight to the big round ball's seemingly magical ability to take down big game like it had been struck by the hammer of Thor.

In order to more fairly compare bullets and their effectiveness on game (disregarding other variables, such as bullet design i.e. jackets, ogive, metal temper, etc.), Taylor devised an equation that included the all-important bullet diameter which changes the performance values tremendously and provides a much more accurate basis of comparison by including the frontal area, that is, the striking area of the projectile. This is the actual surface area by which that all-important momentum is transferred into the target. Appropriately, it is termed the "Taylor Knock Out" formula.

When we apply the TKO to our humble, unsophisticated round ball traveling at higher (than average) velocity, we soon realize that we are not as handicapped as the purveyors and disciples of sabots and pointy bullets would have us believe! (By the way, the word, "sabot" is pronounced, sah-boe' - French for "shoe".)

The application of Taylor’s formula to ballistic data results in a simple numerical value that allows easy comparison that any non-rocket scientist can understand and appreciate. The formula is very simple to calculate where the muzzle Velocity (expressed in feet-per-second) is multiplied by the Diameter of the bullet (in thousandths of an inch) times the Weight of the bullet (in grains) and the product thereof is divided by 7000 (the number of grains in 1 pound). The resulting number expresses a Knock Out value which then becomes the new basis of comparison.The higher the Taylor value, the greater the knockdown power.

As an example, let’s take our old standby, the .30-06, launching a 180-grain bullet at 2700 feet-per-second. By multiplying the Velocity, 2700 fps, by Diameter, .308, we get 831.6 which is multiplied by the Weight in grains, that being 180. The product of 149,688 is then divided by 7000 which provides a Taylor Knock Out value of 21.384 or simply 21.4. Using this formula, the .300 Winchester with the same 180-grain bullet churns up a Taylor value of 24.3. The .45-70 plodding along with its factory-loaded 405-grain bullet renders a Taylor value of 34.4. Not what you had expected, Ill bet.

Yes, but you argue, those values are based on muzzle velocity and the downrange numbers will be much lower as that 405-grain flat-nosed slug runs out of steam - and even more so for a big round ball - right? While true to an extent, the loss is not as bad as you might think. One can easily calculate the downrange Taylor value of any projectile simply by running the equation and plugging in the velocity at a specific distance from the muzzle.

In this example, the limitation on the .45-70 or, in our case, big round ball projectiles, is not lack of knockdown power, it’s the low velocity and the resulting rainbow trajectory of the bullet which is so bowed that accurate placement within the vital zone on game becomes rather iffy beyond 80 yards that is the limiting factor. Unless, of course, you have years of field experience in accurate range estimation - or a range finder. (As stated in the earlier post, we achieve flat trajectories with higher velocity than usual - which can safely be achieved with Forsyth rifling in a good solid rifle.)

Now spurred by our reader’s comment, I had reason to conduct the research and have the following table of data that will provide some interesting numbers on my .62 caliber Faeton’s 320-grain round ball departing the muzzle at 1700 feet-per-second and it’s downrange values as well.

WARNING: Kids, do not try this at home. Do not attempt to load any other .62 caliber muzzleloader to achieve this velocity unless it is deemed to be safe by its manufacturer. I know it to be safe in Faeton rifles that I build utilizing Forsyth rifling. I refuse all liability for the experiments and misdeeds of others. If in doubt, buy a Faeton. (I know that’s a pretty blatant plug, but it is my blog, after all…)

It was that conformant wisdom (translate as "time-honored erroneous assumption") that the muzzle-loaded round ball runs out of poop after 60 yards that really irritated me and became the challenge to drive a stake into the heart of this myth and settle the issue once and for all. I proceeded to calculate the Taylor values for renowned center-fire rifle loads and compared them to the downrange Taylor value of the .62 Faeton. That’s when things really got interesting, as the chart reveals.

Clicking on the chart will enlarge it for easier viewing. Then click the "back" arrow at the top left of your screen to return to the text.

Before making comparisons, however, it must be understood that the Taylor value for the cartridges listed is their knockdown power AT THE MUZZLE. In other words, the Faeton’s knockdown power at 150 yards is about equal to the knockdown power generated by the .340 Weatherby at the muzzle.

Another advantage of the higher velocity obtainable with the Forsyth system is a very flat trajectory. Looking closer at the chart indicates the ball actually rises above the line of sight very little on its trip to the 100 yard mark and then dips a mere 2.7 inches at 120 yards providing virtually a point blank range of 125 yards. No range estimation or hold-over needed - just aim and shoot.

To my way of thinking that’s pretty amazing for a big-bore round ball rifle!

“Yes, but what about accuracy beyond 60 or 70 yards?” he asks. The Faetons that I craft will usually shoot into 3 inches at a hundred yards without much fuss. However, if you get seriously anal they can be made to shoot much tighter. But I question whether super-tight groups are really all that important in putting meat in the freezer.

When I was a much younger man I knew an “old” guy (he was all of 50!) that went deer hunting every year. He wasn’t a gun enthusiast, but he was a hunter. When first introduced to this man, and learning that he enjoyed hunting, I asked what kind of rifle he used. He said it was an “old 30-30 rifle” that was his dad’s and knowing that I was interested in firearms, he asked if I wished to see it. Of course, I wanted to see it! It’s a gun, right?

As it turned out, his “old 30-30 rifle” was actually a .38-55 Winchester Model 1894 with a full octagon barrel and crescent butt plate. I explained that it wasn’t actually a .30-30, but rather a .38-55. He seemed disinterested in the technicalities, but went on to say that the shells were specially ordered for him by the guy down at the hardware store.

The point of all this is that this technically unsophisticated man put meat in the freezer every fall with that rifle – without fail. In further conversation I learned that he did not go to the range and burn up a box of shells sighting in before the season. In fact, he had the same box of shells that he had ordered 6 years earlier!

He said that before he went out for the season he would take a shot at a coffee can that he placed about 50 yards away to make sure the rifle could still “hit,” as he put it. Then he would go do the deed. This man was not a particularly good shot, either. But he was a good hunter.

The moral of the story? Yes, there was a point to that trip down memory lane… I believe we are getting sidetracked by all the hype about the "advantages" of shooting plastic-wrapped pointy bullets and this holy grail quest for muzzleloading rifles that will shoot sub-minute of angle groups. Personally, I don’t see any advantages to plastic-wrapped bullets, but instead, a lot more fuss to load and shoot accurately in the field.

If we are good hunters, a rifle capable of shooting sub-minute of angle groups isn’t going to put meat in the freezer any easier or with more efficiency than a rifle that shoots less than sub-minute of angle. Nor will that tack driver rifle make a good hunter out of an inexperienced hunter. As one old friend once told me in regard to all aspects of shooting, and certainly about putting meat in the freezer, “It’s the loose nut behind the trigger that makes the most difference.”

And just for the record, contrary to nasty and vicious rumors, I hold no disdain for new-fangled, non "traditional" muzzleloading guns. In fact, I have a few designs for such of my own and they look great wearing a scope and can burn synthetic powder and shoot pointy bullets into tight little groups, too. In my opinion, they do have their place - right along side cartridge guns with scopes to be used in center-fire hunting seasons - not in a primitive firearm season.

I don't wish to deprive anyone the joy of our sport. I just don’t want to see our newer muzzleloading brethren being duped into thinking that the old tried and true, easily loaded, sufficiently accurate, (big) round ball can't bring home the bacon in our marvelously modern world. And, that it doesn’t take surgically-accurate rifles to put meat in the freezer – just better hunters.

So, what does all this have to do with Forsyth rifling? It is Forsyth rifling which allows us to safely achieve those high velocities that elevate the lowly, unsophisticated round ball into the realm of performance of some of the most successful cartridges of all time.

One just cannot imagine how effective a big round ball, traveling at high velocity, is at anchoring game on the spot with a single well-placed shot. You have to experience it to believe it. Once you do, you'll be hooked. I have over ten years of feedback from Zephyr and Faeton owners who wholeheartedly agree.

For those open-minded folks who would like to read James Forsyth's wonderful book, The Sporting Rifle and Its Projectiles, the second edition is now in the public domain. If you're not able to locate it, feel free to e-mail me and I'll be happy to send it to you in e-book form.

As I said before, Forsyth had it all figured out 150 years ago!

Underhammer target rifles

An arena in which the underhammer really shines is the realm of target rifles. Everyone is pretty much in agreement that a fast-action lockwork is an essential element of the accuracy equation and most underhammer actions are indeed fast.


During the latter half of the 19th century there were a number of makers of underhammer target rifles, two of the most notable among them were the famous New York gunmaker, William Billinghurst, and to a lesser degree, his contemporary, David H. Hilliard of Cornish, New Hampshire. Yes, there were many more makers of underhammer target rifles but I would like to draw your attention to these two for a moment.

Both produced fine examples of underhammer target rifles, although quite different in their basic designs. A Google search will provide info and photos of their outstanding work for those who don't mind a bit more snooping.

Today there are a few underhammer makers who have taken some of the older designs and added their own thoughts, ideas and improvements. One such gunmaker is Tilo Dedinski of Kulback, Germany. Inspired by the work of Billinghurst, Mr. Dedinski has produced a first-class modern-day Billinghurst that has proven its worth by taking gold in international competition.

His "Billinghurst," seen here in its offhand version, is available in two configurations and calibers intended for 50-meter and 100-meter matches. You may wish to visit his website: www.dedinski.com for more information on his full line of underhammer arms.




While some makers have chosen to emulate Billinghurst's designs, it seems that the underhammer designs of Hilliard have inspired a number of other modern European gunmakers to produce and offer their own versions of his justly famous target rifles as seen in the photo to the left.

Although Europeans developed their own underhammmer systems, they have long admired the features represented in American underhammer designs and the quality of materials and construction employed by them indicates the respect that they have for American underhammers.











The Italian Artax is a very modern rendition of the percussion underhammer system and is more evidence that the underhammer concept and its development is still alive and well, both here and abroad. Below is the more traditional Artax underhammer target rifle. Unfortunately, there are no current U.S. distributors of what appears to be a very fine rifle. Clicking on the photo will allow a detailed view of the Artax. Clicking the Back button at the top left of your screen will return you to the text.

During the War Between the States, underhammer rifles were used quite successfully by a number of snipers and I believe it was the underhammer's performance on the battlefield that may have lead to their post-war use and development as target rifles.

Some have asked me about producing a (smaller bore) underhammer rifle with more influence of a target rifle than a hunting rifle. While I prefer crafting hunting rifles, I have made some rather wild target rifles based on the underhammer system, the most extreme being a .54 calibre offhand schuetzen rifle.

A reader of this blog had asked if I had photos of any of the underhammer target rifles that I had made. As it turns out, the only one that I bothered to document with photos is that schuetzen. I have included them below as an example of what can be done for anyone who wishes to venture down that road.

Good luck!



The exaggerated features of the schuetzen rifle are designed to provide the perfect ergonomic fit of rifle to shooter for 200-yard offhand shooting. The idea being that the shooter simply stands in a comfortable, unstrained offhand pose and the rifle fits the pose perfectly.

In my version the forearm provides a palm rest that keeps the left hand away from the upward swinging hammer. Or if the shooter is one who rests the forearm on his finger tips, there is a thumb hollow on the bottom of the forearm which makes for a secure support when using that hold.

While perhaps not a beauty to most, it's a pretty face that any schuetzen shooter can admire.

The extreme sculpted cheekpiece provides a very comfortable face-fitting support while the light Swiss buttplate helps hold the rifle firmly on the shoulder. This buttplate is actually quite large and flat and distributes recoil very well making the 20-shot string less fatiguing and more comfortable to shoot.


Coupled with the unusual forward-arcing finger rest, the well-proportioned thumb rest on the right side of the buttstock allows full control of the rifle by the right hand while still isolating trigger finger motion from adverse influence on the rifle while squeezing off the shot.

Again, ergonomics is the name of the game when designing the schuetzen rifle

Good sights are essential for 200-yard offhand shooting. Turning the sight disk (yes, it's wood) loosens it and allows course adjustment to get your shots on target quickly, while the calibrated thumbwheel allows for finer tuning to zero the shot. A windage adjustment screw is also provided at the rear of the tang on the right side of the sight.

The round "window" on the tang of the sight allows viewing the number settings stamped on the thumbwheel for exact repeatability in sight adjustment.

At the muzzle there is a very fine bead sight protected by an ample globe. Together with this rear aperture sight, they create the clear and precise sight picture necessary to win at this game.

Because this rifle is strictly a range rifle, loading is accomplished with a range rod, hence no ramrod, which simplified construction.

Combining the ultra fast underhammer mechanism with a good solid offhand shooting platform such as the schuetzen seen here, resulted in a very accurate rifle. And while strange looking to the novice, these rifles handle like a dream and will out-shoot the capabilities of most shooters.

Clicking on any of the images will enlarge them for easier study of details. Clicking the "Back" arrow will bring you back to the text.

John Taylor's latest underhammer

Recently I received an e-mail from another underhammer afficianado, John Taylor, who is also a builder. For those of you who need machining services for your gun projects, underhammers or otherwise, you may wish to visit John's website and give him a call.

Thanks John for your contribution to the success of this blog. It's good to hear from another builder, although this is a forum for anyone interested in underhammers - not just builders. So dear readers, send in those underhammer stories or questions and we'll share them with everyone.

Here's John's story and some pics of his latest underhammer:

Roger,

I have always liked underhammers. The first one I had was back in the mid 70s, a Numrich Hopkins & Allen 45 cal target rifle that never would group well.

I have made more than a few over the years including a brass barreled BB gun that would put a BB through a 1" board at 25 yards with 4 grains of 4F.

The latest build started out as a piece of brass water pump shaft. The 32 caliber barrel was ordered for another job many years back and never got used. It just collected dust on the shelf. The hammer and trigger are from a Numrich H&A. The front and rear sight were made by me.

The rear sight has 40 threads per inch and can be adjusted in 1/2 turn increments, the eye piece will screw in from ether side. A 1/2 turn comes out to about 1.23" at 100 yards.

The wood was rough sawn stock blanks from Gun Parts Corp. The screws and all other machine work were done by me. Engraving was done by Dale Woody of www.gunfancy.com. I had trouble getting used to the lack of recoil as my other underhammer is a 62.

Best regards,

John Taylor
www.johntaylormachine.com